Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present

User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present

The page is a rant, full of an awful lot of attacks against George W. Bush, and unrelated to the encyclopedia. We can be liberal with what goes on userpages, but I think this is over the line. The page even comes with a nice template warning that people might want to censor it by bringing it to MFD, and I think that is about as immature as those who create pages like "OMFG Stop deleting this page!!!!". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, clear abusive actions inlight of the purpose of the encyclopedia. I welcome user's to their viewpoints, but in the creation of an encyclopedia (wether in the mainspace or not), this is an commmunity where we leave or viewpoints at the door. This has nothing to do with the well-being of the site and must go. -Zero^Talk 13:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where exactly we should draw the line. In my opinion Sjakkalle's chess game, for example, is fine on his main userpage. But if he were to make a separate subpage containing only a collection of his chess games with no attempt to link the content to Wikipedia then, well, I suppose someone might be justified in objecting to that. Likewise I don't think a shortened version of GoW's musings on his main userpage would be that objectionable. But subpages in userspace with no apparent relation to editing Wikipedia should be avoided, so I suppose this one might as well go. And of course that has nothing to do with censoring a particular political view. Haukur 13:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NOT your blog. android79 14:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Check out http://www.blogger.com for a great place to host your personal essays. --Deathphoenix 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment – Has anybody actually tried reading the thing? It's a copy/paste of the text of the United States Declaration on Independence, plus a devisive heading and pictures, and a few (exactly four) comments. Right or wrong, this is not quite a rant. – ClockworkSoul 15:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've read it. However, I note that this article still lacks veritifible fact for its exsistance. -Zero^Talk 15:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Zero, it isn't an article. Xoloz 17:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If it was, we'd have an serious problem indeed. -Zero^Talk 18:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so it is an annotated US Declaration of Independence? Thanks for pointing it out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm? – ClockworkSoul 15:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No, not sarcasm. I have seen the declaration before, but I didn't recognize it. (The declaration is not required reading in Norway.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. :) It's actually quite a beautifully written document (in its original form). – ClockworkSoul 15:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I make no judgement as to whether this page is too devisive to transcend the tolerance normally afforded to user space materials. I was just a bit surprised that nobody recognized its source. – ClockworkSoul 15:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I recognized it. Applying the statements made in the DoI to GWB is not an original thing; I thought it was too obvious to point out... android79 15:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. My mistake then. – ClockworkSoul 15:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't recognise it as the Declaration of Independence (not being from the US), but while the text isn't his personal essay, I think his personally-assigned titled certainly isn't that good. I still think that blogger.com is a better host for such commentary than a Wikipedia userspace. :-) --Deathphoenix 17:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (WP:NOT and WP:NPOV). This hasnothing to do with 'divisiveness' - or any wish to censor GofW's views, it is simply that we are NOT a webhost for personal essays unrelated to wikipedia. Arguably, declaring your POV on a userpage might be good for the project (bias declared is bias avoided and all that stuff) but there is no way that developing an expanded argument for your POV can be justified under that contention. At that point we have crossed the line from allowing people to declare their POV, to allowing them to push and advocate it. --Doc ^ask? 16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm quite amused at seeing how some people call the U.S. Declaration of independence "a rant, full of an awful lot of attacks", or a "personal essay" or "lacks in justifiable facts for its existence". Well, that's possibly how King George III would have called it in 1776. I'm leaving to people wiser than me to decide if a Wikipedia user should be allowed to keep a personal copy of this incredibly subversive historical document on their userpage or if it should be censored. Note that the user has replaced exactly two words (which he clearly indicated in bold): "King (of) Great-Britain" by "President (of the) U.S.". I'm not sure that I see how "a shortened version of (the Founding Fathers') musings" could retain the original flavor. Asclepias 17:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for a separate copy in his user space, since the text is available here, among other places. android79 17:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

But there is no harm in a second copy, either. God of War is a regular contributor; if he wants to add a few words to a public domain document to make a {rather unsophisticated) political statement, it does no harm. Fact is, the original content on this page is tiny. Considering the sort of rants one might embark on, this is tame, if not commendable. The page says almost nothing new. Xoloz 17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a thumbnail image of the Canadian flag on my userpage. I'm sure some people can interpret it as a political statement (even if I don't), and it certainly is available in other places. So, it would seem that my userpage meets both your criteria for deletion. God of War's page seems an example of a page where the message is in the eye of the beholder. My reading of it is: "1- this user thinks that userpages are too easily deleted, and 2- this user is of the opinion that the actions of the president diverge from the traditional values of the U.S.". I'm just wondering where a userpage leaves the realm of the politically acceptable and enters that of the unacceptable. Asclepias 19:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Not a rant, but an odd (and very slight) rewording of the US Declaration of Independence, as pointed out. Minimal original content, really; if he wants it as a plaything, no harm done. Xoloz 17:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an playground, nor is it an area for the eximplification of free speech. This document is the wikipedian equivilent to smearing dirt on the walls, and it muddies the waters of maintaining an WP:NPOV. -Zero^Talk 18:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia gives latitude to its established editors in expressing their views as a matter of courtesy; Wikipedia has better things to do than bother with stamping out this miminalistic effort at protest speech. Further, allowing editors firmly to express their biases aids NPOV, rather than harming it. Xoloz 18:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I disagree. This mfd discussion is an perfect example of wikipedia stamping out imflammtory content such as these. -Zero^Talk 18:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you grossly overestimate the extent to which this is inflammatory. Imagine I were to take the Declaration and amend to it the prefacing sentence, "Winnie the Pooh is my father." That is the functional equivalent of this thing. Granted, Bush is a more hated figure; but, his insertion is, if anything, a less original choice. This userpage is a toy, and like our scratchpads, our talk-page banter, and WP:Games, it does no harm, except when some decide to give it undeserved attention by MfD'ing it. Policing userspace for minor eccentricities is a very bad idea. Xoloz 18:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to agree to disagree with you there. Its also of note that I didn't nominate this userspace document for deletion in the first place. If wikipedia is an place where user's devulge from the goal of creating the encyclopedia to voice views and opinions, with justification under the entitlement of free speech and playthings, then its not an good sign. We attempt to construct oursleves and the quality of the site as professional and as NPOV as possible. Userspace is only an means to an end in that it improves the main goal. It is nethier an entititlement nor an privilage, and should be treated as such.-Zero^Talk 18:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hey guys, Has anyone here actually tried reading it? It's not a rant and it's not an essay.

• KeepIt's only a copy/paste of the declaration of independence with a few factual statements with news stories referenced under each line of the declaration. I was going to get to it eventually but until then I moved it out of my main page and into a sub-page.--God of War 18:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's only a copy/paste of the declaration of independence with news stories referenced under each line of the declaration.... Bullcrap. It's a political statement -- a not very sophisticated political statement, at that -- that uses the Declaration of Independence as its vehicle: to state otherwise is being disingenuous. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you expand on this statement? When you got around to finishing it, what plans did you have for it? InkSplotch^(talk) 21:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NOT free webhosting. Furthermore, we already have an article on Declaration of Independence (United States) - if God of War actually has an encyclopaedic purpose with this, he should go to that page. We also already have wikisource:United States Declaration of Independence, there's no reason to duplicate this. --bainer (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hate to feed this, but this is clearly not what wikipedia is for. - Taxman ^Talk 10:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Xoloz. --Ghirla | talk 14:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep – Firstly, it's hardly a "rant". Second, it's in his user directory, so let's cut him some slack. – ClockworkSoul 15:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's specifically against what Wikipedia is for. What value of having the essay and other things like it and the costs of editing and servers, etc to support that is important enough to make the exception? I really don't mean to sound combative but I fail to understand why people think we should keep material like this when there are plenty of other outlets for stuff like it and it doesn't help accomplish any project goals. If there were no other avenues I might understand. - Taxman ^Talk 18:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the thing, Taxman -- I have a slinky in my desk. It doesn't contribute to my work, except insofar as it allevates my boredom to remove it from my desk and twiddle with it from time to time. Jean Baudrillard talks about this sort of structural allowance within any organization. It optimizing performance to let people do tiny, fun things, no matter how serious we are. Now, this page isn't worth much, because it isn't orginal, but -- if it makes a regular contributor a bit happier to work him, he should be allowed to keep his slinky. Xoloz 21:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I must ammend your thesis in this statement. It's understandable to allow the aquisition of the slinky because he's confined to an desk/cubicle/the like. It could be argued there's somewhat of an space defencientcy in regards to where he can place it. However, there are many other places GOW could place this composition. Make an document in Microsoft Word. Place it on an blog. Send it in e-mail to his friends. Countless possibilities. But it doesn't belong here. And it must go. Its really simple; encyclopedias are not the area for biased points of views, especially when they deverge away from the main goal and lack any type of contructive uses for an mainstream audience. -Zero^Talk 21:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. It's really easy to open up another tab with myspace/whatever open in it. We had plenty of fun here before userboxes and pov essays were all the rage and we'll have lots of fun when we don't have them. - Taxman ^Talk 21:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The slinky can go on your desk because it is your desk, to do with as you see fit. Userspace, however, belongs to the community. --bainer (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• When I finish with this it will be removed. Until then, Why is it such a big damn deal?--God of War 19:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's not that big a deal. It's just not what we're here for, so it might as well be deleted. - Taxman ^Talk 14:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Blogspot is free: go there. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete and be all anti-good faith by warning the user for pushing WP:POINT. I like abusing my user area, but its obvious this user (without even checking who they are) doesn't fit in with the Wiki way. Esteffect 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. What Calton said. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not as offensive, but as dull and unoriginal. It's merely a carbon copy of the DoI with two added assertations copied verbatim from other sources. You can do better than that. — Feb. 22, '06 [01:02] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Delete, outside scope of project. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Coolgamer 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A bold vote from a user that boasts an extravagent 94 userboxes implemented on his userpage. -Zero^Talk 20:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop with the Ad-Hominem attacks Zero. I may lose the debate to keep this on a sub-page but then I will simply move it back to my main userpage. This MFD accomplishes nothing.--God of War 23:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)